Now that the 2020 Election is over....

[Charles Austin]

Peter writes:
What does this change? Why does it matter? If you were confident that everything in this article were accurate, you wouldn't waste your time posting it.
I comment:
That comment makes no sense. I am confident that everything in The article is accurate.
I am sharing some new accurate information with people likely not have ordinary access to it. You're welcome.
Ditto for the article about the postal worker. His phony affidavit about voter fraud got wide distribution. It turns out it was a lie. And it turns out that Senator Graham was so eager to find a reason to support the president's wild comments that he distributed the lie without verifying it himself. Shame on Graham.
Reports tonight also say that none of the lawsuits filed in multiple states by the president's people have any remote possibility of changing the outcome of the election. So, we ask, why are they being filed?
The president meddling with the top levels of the Pentagon at this late stage in his term is also somewhat scary.
He tried to send the vice president out on a "voter fraud in Pennsylvania" mission far beneath the dignity of the vice president's office. The Vice president did not go.

[peter_speckhard]

I'd very interested to hear people chime in with which sources they believe. Charles has the NYT and "almost every news agency in the country." I have Townhall (a conservative website) with an article that includes audio and transcriptions from Project Veritas.

[peter_speckhard]

Peter writes:
What does this change? Why does it matter? If you were confident that everything in this article were accurate, you wouldn't waste your time posting it.
I comment:
That comment makes no sense. I am confident that everything in The article is accurate.
I am sharing some new accurate information with people likely not have ordinary access to it. You're welcome.
Ditto for the article about the postal worker. His phony affidavit about voter fraud got wide distribution. It turns out it was a lie. And it turns out that Senator Graham was so eager to find a reason to support the president's wild comments that he distributed the lie without verifying it himself. Shame on Graham.
Reports tonight also say that none of the lawsuits filed in multiple states by the president's people have any remote possibility of changing the outcome of the election. So, we ask, why are they being filed?
The president meddling with the top levels of the Pentagon at this late stage in his term is also somewhat scary.
He tried to send the vice president out on a "voter fraud in Pennsylvania" mission far beneath the dignity of the vice president's office. The Vice president did not go.

The comment makes perfect sense. You can't even answer basic questions like what does this change or why does it matter. Because the only way it changes anything and the only way it can matter is if it is not certain. You reflexively believe sources that are knowingly lying to you because it never enters your head that "almost every news agency in the country" might be a partisan source.

[Charles Austin]

Peter, here's the answer to the issue you just tried to raise.
Not long after the announcement, Project Veritas — a conservative group that researchers say has engaged in a coordinated disinformation campaign to delegitimize the voting process — released a video in which Mr. Hopkins said that he had not actually recanted his statements. (Washington Post)
You believe that Project Veritas outlet? Come on, you're better than that.

[Voelker]

Reports tonight also say that none of the lawsuits filed in multiple states by the president's people have any remote possibility of changing the outcome of the election. So, we ask, why are they being filed?

Perhaps it has to do with trying to cut out known or possible avenues for fraud next time around. Look at the group of state AGs joining together on a suit this week — they want SCOTUS to establish precedent to prevent election law from being circumvented or changed at the last minute, but instead to actually be followed as written and passed. Just because Trump is rather, uh, self-involved doesn't mean he can't or won't play the long game for his allies.

Peter is also quite correct in his most recent post.

[peter_speckhard]

Peter, here's the answer to the issue you just tried to raise.
Not long after the announcement, Project Veritas — a conservative group that researchers say has engaged in a coordinated disinformation campaign to delegitimize the voting process — released a video in which Mr. Hopkins said that he had not actually recanted his statements. (Washington Post)
You believe that Project Veritas outlet? Come on, you're better than that.

"Researchers say..." What researchers? On what evidence? There is video of the guy saying he is looking at the WaPo article that says he recanted and calling it a lie.

Everything Project Veritas has done that I know of has been completely vindicated, starting with their undercover sting of Planned Parenthood and their trafficking in fetal body parts. You have nothing left in your argument tank but ad hominem-- you believe THEM? But they're CRAZY! Even when they show you video evidence, it can't be real because "researchers say" they're on a disinformation campaign, apparently up to and including warping the laws of physics to make it look and sound as though someone is saying he didn't recant when he obviously meant he did recant. 

[Charles Austin]

Peter:
You can't even answer basic questions like what does this change or why does it matter. Because the only way it changes anything and the only way it can matter is if it is not certain. You reflexively believe sources that are knowingly lying to you because it never enters your head that "almost every news agency in the country" might be a partisan source.
Me:
Peter, your reflexive defense of Him is really rather surprising. So I'm not going down your black rabbit hole.
Here is what I believe to be true and proven to be true.
   -Biden won the election.
   -He will be the next president.
   -There was no massive order fraud.
   -The election was fair, save for those parts of the country where the Republicans tried to make it hard for certain people to vote.
   Do you, Peter, deny  that those things are true?
Here is what I suspect is true, but do not yet have proof.
   -The president is acting as if he were seriously disturbed mentally in recent days.
   -His childish actions regarding the transition are a serious dereliction of duty and an actual threat to the security of the country.
And, by the way, what is he doing this past week to actually be the president? When is he doing his real job?
P.S. And my last peek down the dark rabbit hole:
You'll have to ask the postmaster inspector general about the veracity of that affidavit. He's the one who reported to Congress that it was a fraud. Do you believe a politically biased ultra-right-wing newsletter rather than the postmaster Inspector General? You probably do.

[peter_speckhard]

Peter:
You can't even answer basic questions like what does this change or why does it matter. Because the only way it changes anything and the only way it can matter is if it is not certain. You reflexively believe sources that are knowingly lying to you because it never enters your head that "almost every news agency in the country" might be a partisan source.
Me:
Peter, your reflexive defense of Him is really rather surprising. So I'm not going down your black rabbit hole.
Here is what I believe to be true and proven to be true.
   -Biden won the election.
   -He will be the next president.
   -There was no massive order fraud.
   -The election was fair, save for those parts of the country where the Republicans tried to make it hard for certain people to vote.
   Do you, Peter, deny  that those things are true?
Here is what I suspect is true, but do not yet have proof.
   -The president is acting as if he were seriously disturbed mentally in recent days.
   -His childish actions regarding the transition are a serious dereliction of duty and an actual threat to the security of the country.
And, by the way, what is he doing this past week to actually be the president? When is he doing his real job?
P.S. And my last peek down the dark rabbit hole:
You'll have to ask the postmaster inspector general about the veracity of that affidavit. He's the one who reported to Congress that it was a fraud. Do you believe a politically biased ultra-right-wing newsletter rather than the postmaster Inspector General? You probably do.

I think Biden is favored to win the election. I think there were many fraudulent votes cast. I think if it was overall a fair election, then it involved some spectacular statistical anomalies. I think there is a lot of disinformation floating around on both sides. I do not believe what I read at Townhall simply because they say it. Nor do I discount it simply because they say it the way you do. I evaluate the evidence they present and look at what seems likely. For that reason, I tend to trust Project Veritas because their m.o. us to go under cover and get real recordings, which they then share. That having been said, i would be surprised (but not stunned) if it turns out Trump won the election.

[Brian Stoffregen]

One positive I see coming from the legal challenges is that they shine the spotlight on a perennial problem. They find hundreds of dead people voted. Okay. Not going to change the result in any state. But who mailed those envelopes? Who filled in the ballots? It is a felony to cast a fraudulent vote. What is being done to find the person who deliberately mailed in an illegal vote and to make sure they pay a big enough price to deter others?

There are several investigations in Texas. One that has proceeded to formal charges is a person charged with 134 counts of election fraud:

https://dfw.cbslocal.com/2020/11/06/texas-social-worker-charged-counts-election-fraud/

This is exactly why mass mail-in ballots are an awful idea.

Local radio today had a caller who said his daughter had lived in Oregon for years... and voted in resident in Oregon this year... However to Oregon mail ballots were sent to her former out-of-state home where she grew up.

It was particularly distressing to find out that this man's daughter has never lived at home since she had established her residency in Oregon. Why were ballots sent to an out-of-state address when she was clearly currently a resident of the state of Oregon?

I'm not doubting the outcome of the Oregon election... That's part of the blue western wall ... but demonstrates why there is massive doubt about the blanket mailing of ballots.

Our son has lived in Washington for a couple of years. He hasn't updated his driver's license. It still shows him living in Arizona. We received a number of pieces of mail for him regarding the election. Had she gotten an Oregon Driver's License? Had she registered to vote in Oregon with an Oregon ID number? There's not enough information to make an informed decision about this lapse; except mailing or receiving a mail-in ballot at the wrong address is not a crime. Trying to cast two or more ballots is.

[James J Eivan]

One positive I see coming from the legal challenges is that they shine the spotlight on a perennial problem. They find hundreds of dead people voted. Okay. Not going to change the result in any state. But who mailed those envelopes? Who filled in the ballots? It is a felony to cast a fraudulent vote. What is being done to find the person who deliberately mailed in an illegal vote and to make sure they pay a big enough price to deter others?

There are several investigations in Texas. One that has proceeded to formal charges is a person charged with 134 counts of election fraud:

https://dfw.cbslocal.com/2020/11/06/texas-social-worker-charged-counts-election-fraud/

This is exactly why mass mail-in ballots are an awful idea.

Local radio today had a caller who said his daughter had lived in Oregon for years... and voted in resident in Oregon this year... However to Oregon mail ballots were sent to her former out-of-state home where she grew up.

It was particularly distressing to find out that this man's daughter has never lived at home since she had established her residency in Oregon. Why were ballots sent to an out-of-state address when she was clearly currently a resident of the state of Oregon?

I'm not doubting the outcome of the Oregon election... That's part of the blue western wall ... but demonstrates why there is massive doubt about the blanket mailing of ballots.

Our son has lived in Washington for a couple of years. He hasn't updated his driver's license. It still shows him living in Arizona. We received a number of pieces of mail for him regarding the election. Had she gotten an Oregon Driver's License? Had she registered to vote in Oregon with an Oregon ID number? There's not enough information to make an informed decision about this lapse; except mailing or receiving a mail-in ballot at the wrong address is not a crime. Trying to cast two or more ballots is.

Twas rather simple ... once she moved to Oregon,  she remained in Oregon, she registered to vote in Oregon and received a ballot and voted this year in Oregon.

Why were ballots mailed to her both at her Oregon residence and 2 ballots to a out of state address where never lived after registering to vote in Oregon?

Biggest question ... why were ballots mailed to two addresses ... one address alone receiving 2 ballots?

Who in their right mind would mail multiple ballots to the same voter ... at multiple addresses?

What happened to one voter one ballot?

[Brian Stoffregen]

One positive I see coming from the legal challenges is that they shine the spotlight on a perennial problem. They find hundreds of dead people voted. Okay. Not going to change the result in any state. But who mailed those envelopes? Who filled in the ballots? It is a felony to cast a fraudulent vote. What is being done to find the person who deliberately mailed in an illegal vote and to make sure they pay a big enough price to deter others?

There are several investigations in Texas. One that has proceeded to formal charges is a person charged with 134 counts of election fraud:

https://dfw.cbslocal.com/2020/11/06/texas-social-worker-charged-counts-election-fraud/

This is exactly why mass mail-in ballots are an awful idea.

Local radio today had a caller who said his daughter had lived in Oregon for years... and voted in resident in Oregon this year... However to Oregon mail ballots were sent to her former out-of-state home where she grew up.

It was particularly distressing to find out that this man's daughter has never lived at home since she had established her residency in Oregon. Why were ballots sent to an out-of-state address when she was clearly currently a resident of the state of Oregon?

I'm not doubting the outcome of the Oregon election... That's part of the blue western wall ... but demonstrates why there is massive doubt about the blanket mailing of ballots.

Our son has lived in Washington for a couple of years. He hasn't updated his driver's license. It still shows him living in Arizona. We received a number of pieces of mail for him regarding the election. Had she gotten an Oregon Driver's License? Had she registered to vote in Oregon with an Oregon ID number? There's not enough information to make an informed decision about this lapse; except mailing or receiving a mail-in ballot at the wrong address is not a crime. Trying to cast two or more ballots is.

Twas rather simple ... once she moved to Oregon,  she remained in Oregon, she registered to vote in Oregon and received a ballot and voted this year in Oregon.

Why were ballots mailed to her both at her Oregon residence and 2 ballots to a out of state address where never lived after registering to vote in Oregon?

Biggest question ... why were ballots mailed to two addresses ... one address alone receiving 2 ballots?

Who in their right mind would mail multiple ballots to the same voter ... at multiple addresses?

What happened to one voter one ballot?

It's actually one voter one vote. There's nothing wrong about making sure that all registered voters get a ballot, even if that might result in sending ballots to a second address that's on file (but shouldn't be). Fraud happens when the person tries to submit two or more ballots. Honest people would inform the voting officials about the mistake so that it wouldn't happen next time.


We had to tell a poll taker who asked about our son, who had lived with us, that he was no longer in the state. She made a note of that to take him off their list of Arizona voters.

[James J Eivan]

One positive I see coming from the legal challenges is that they shine the spotlight on a perennial problem. They find hundreds of dead people voted. Okay. Not going to change the result in any state. But who mailed those envelopes? Who filled in the ballots? It is a felony to cast a fraudulent vote. What is being done to find the person who deliberately mailed in an illegal vote and to make sure they pay a big enough price to deter others?

There are several investigations in Texas. One that has proceeded to formal charges is a person charged with 134 counts of election fraud:

https://dfw.cbslocal.com/2020/11/06/texas-social-worker-charged-counts-election-fraud/

This is exactly why mass mail-in ballots are an awful idea.

Local radio today had a caller who said his daughter had lived in Oregon for years... and voted in resident in Oregon this year... However to Oregon mail ballots were sent to her former out-of-state home where she grew up.

It was particularly distressing to find out that this man's daughter has never lived at home since she had established her residency in Oregon. Why were ballots sent to an out-of-state address when she was clearly currently a resident of the state of Oregon?

I'm not doubting the outcome of the Oregon election... That's part of the blue western wall ... but demonstrates why there is massive doubt about the blanket mailing of ballots.

Our son has lived in Washington for a couple of years. He hasn't updated his driver's license. It still shows him living in Arizona. We received a number of pieces of mail for him regarding the election. Had she gotten an Oregon Driver's License? Had she registered to vote in Oregon with an Oregon ID number? There's not enough information to make an informed decision about this lapse; except mailing or receiving a mail-in ballot at the wrong address is not a crime. Trying to cast two or more ballots is.

Twas rather simple ... once she moved to Oregon,  she remained in Oregon, she registered to vote in Oregon and received a ballot and voted this year in Oregon.

Why were ballots mailed to her both at her Oregon residence and 2 ballots to a out of state address where never lived after registering to vote in Oregon?

Biggest question ... why were ballots mailed to two addresses ... one address alone receiving 2 ballots?

Who in their right mind would mail multiple ballots to the same voter ... at multiple addresses?

What happened to one voter one ballot?

It's actually one voter one vote. There's nothing wrong about making sure that all registered voters get a ballot, even if that might result in sending ballots to a second address that's on file (but shouldn't be). Fraud happens when the person tries to submit two or more ballots. Honest people would inform the voting officials about the mistake so that it wouldn't happen next time.

We had to tell a poll taker who asked about our son, who had lived with us, that he was no longer in the state. She made a note of that to take him off their list of Arizona voters.

Here we meet an impasse ... I believe trust but verify ... one person, one ballot, one vote. 

The idea that more than one ballot can be routinely mailed to a single voter is entirely mind boggling from a control standpoint.  But then no doubt you will some how believe that photo positive photo ID for in person voting suppressed voting ... the idea that one can function today without a photo id is troubling as well.

[Charles Austin]

Brian, our daughter received "official," that is New Jersey state and local governmental information, including postcards about voting (polling places, dates, etc.) for five years after she left New Jersey, settled in Minnesota and had registered to vote there. She had to send a notarized request to be removed, or she would have been removed after a certain number of years and required to re-register if she wanted to vote.
Now those were the days before widespread mail-in voting was possible, but of course absentee voting - which she had done during her college years in Minnesota - was possible.
Beloved Spouse, a long-time member of the League of Women Voters and two-term president of the local New Jersey chapter, wondered about the possibility of voting in more than one venue. Through the national League of Women Voters we learned that most states had various safeguards in place to keep the voting rolls "clean." And remember that states manage and run elections, so may handle it different ways.
Some bottom line conclusions.
From then.
-If it were possible for some people to vote in two venues, it would only be for an incredibly small number of persons. Vote in Massachusetts at 9 am., and dash across the border to New Hampshire and vote again at 3 p.m., that sort of thing.
-Almost all states have some ways of removing inactive - that is, moved or deceased - voters from the list of registered voters. And if the removal is not complete, the possibility of an organized attempt to use those voters to swing an election is small.
Today.
Mail-in voting today has brought in more safeguards, we were told by workers at the polling place where Beloved Spouse and I cast our ballot.
We had requested mail-in ballots. But before they arrived, we decided to vote in person because Minnesota has the possibility of early voting, and we knew that the post office was being manipulated to prevent ballots from being received on time.
At the polling place we filled out essentially the same form we had used to request the mail-in ballot. We asked what we should do when our ballots arrived in the mail, as they were to be sent out three days hence.
"Just tear them up and throw them away," the poll worker said.
"Can't cast them anyway?" I said, making it clear I was joking.
The poll worker said the envelope she had just given me had a bar codes on it. I would put my ballot in that envelope and that is what would go in the ballot box. The counters would scan the bar code on the envelope, which would then mean that my vote had been cast, just as if I had signed in at the polling place on election day.
The mail-in ballot would also have a bar code. Should I try to cast it, the machine would reject it because I had already voted. A complex system built into the technology kept anyone from knowing how I had voted in early voting, it only told them that I had voted.
And there was a way we could go online and find out - using our state ID, or other official ID number - that our votes had been received and tallied (which of course we did).
My conclusions, assuming most states have similar protections
-Mail-in voting can be protected much easier than in person voting.
-It would be extremely difficult to "stuff the ballot" box through mail-in voting
-Those who want to do nasty things might have ways of preventing mailed ballots from reaching counters, although it would be hard to do that on a massive scale. And I could find out if my ballot had not reached the counters.
So, folks...
It remains my not-so-humble opinion that the possibility of massive voter fraud today would be difficult. It would certainly be very hard to swing a vote by many hundreds, let alone thousands and thousands of phony ballots.
And we all know, since we read a variety of news sources, that no one today has provide any evidence or even hints of evidence that there were tens of thousands of invalid votes cast in any state. Some legal challenges to this year's presidential voting have already been laughed out of court because of this.

[Donald_Kirchner]

"Some of these woke people need to take a nap." James Carville after down-ballot Dem losses.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/james-carville-says-woke-people-need-to-take-nap-after-down-ballot-democratic-losses

[Charles Austin]

The Times contacted 50 states seeking information from officials Republican and Democrat about evidence of significant voter fraud that would affect the count. No one reported any. At this point in previous elections, even before all states had "'formally" certified, help was offered the one whom everyone knew would be the new president.
I ask Trump defenders here:
Do you still support the filing of lawsuits, the refusal to fund the President-Elect's transition team and denying the President-Elect access to security briefings and appropriate help from the State Department? Do you support Trump's "order" to government agencies to get ready for his February budget? If so, why?

P.S to Mr. Garner:
I understand the feelings of those who think the president was unfairly treated. I disagree with them and hope they will recover soon. I won't and can't change how they feel. I can ask them, for the good of the country, to work fairly with those now in office, not - if they think this is the situation - "returning evil for evil". (Romans 12:17)